This took a bit longer than expected, but the IKEv1 transform
IDs have now been allocated by IANA, and they're listed in
errata for RFC 4543:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/isakmp-registry
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4543&eid=1821
(Big thanks to Tero for his help with the de
Hi everyone,
To date we've had only two last call reviews of this document. Please consider
this a personal invitation to be the lucky third. We simply cannot advance the
document unless we're convinced it's had adequate review.
We are hereby extending the WGLC by another 2 weeks, until Oct. 27
- Section 7, 1st paragraph: MOBIKE is mentioned without a reference.
- Section 7, 2nd paragraph: s/avare/aware/
- Section 8.1, next to last sentence: this sentence is grammatically
incorrect, I think. How about:
If the protocol (also known as the, "next header") of thepacket is
Note: I did not review the appendix nor its sub-sections.
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:34:24PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> Done.
One more comment:
- State keeping by intermediate nodes is described as an optimization,
however: a) I'm not sure that that necessarily follows, since state
keeping and cache index lookups are not free, and anyways,
Thanks, Nico! However...
At 1:35 PM -0500 10/13/09, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>Note: I did not review the appendix nor its sub-sections.
Please do. :-)
Seriously, folks, the appendix is pretty important, inasmuch as some developers
will pay more attention to it than they do the main body. It woul
Ron Bonica, one of the IETF's Operations and Management ADs, is asking for
reviews of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term and draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth. Yaron and
I have mentioned them at various meetings. These docs have been wandering
forwards in the Benchmarking WG for many (many!) years, and are nea
Greetings again. As Yaron and I have said many times in the past, when a few of
our WG documents have been completed, we can think about adding additional
items to our charter. We think that we will soon be at that point.
For new items to be considered in the WG, we need to have an existing,
pe
Just to make sure this does not fall through the cracks: we've submitted rev 09
last week to address
the AD review comments per discussion on the mailing list and at the virtual
interim.
- Original Message
> From: Yaron Sheffer
> To: Tero Kivinen ; "Grewal, Ken"
> Cc: "ipsec@ietf.or
